Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects

Author(s): Robert L. Kelly

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 21 (1992), pp. 43-66
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155980
Accessed: 04-10-2016 17:24 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155980?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1992. 21:43-66
Copyright ? 1992 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

MOBJHTY/SEDENTISM: CONCEPTS,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MEASURES,
AND EFFECTS

Robert L. Kelly

Department of Anthropology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292;

Bitnet: RLKELLO1 @ULKYVM

KEYWORDS: stone tool technology, enculturation, inequality, site structure, foraging

INTRODUCTION

There is hardly a more romantic image in anthropology than that of a small

band of hunter-gatherers setting off into the bush, their few belongings on their
backs. Mobility, in fact, has long been considered a defining characteristic of
hunter-gatherers. At the Man the Hunter conference, for example, Lee &
DeVore (101:1 1) assumed that all hunter-gatherers "move around a lot." This
is not entirely accurate, for many hunter-gatherers move infrequently-some
less than many "sedentary" horticultural societies. Early concepts of mobility
blinded us to the fact that mobility is universal, variable, and multi-dimen-
sional.
Partly because of these concepts, and partly because we do not understand
the relationships between movement and material culture, archaeologists have
had difficulty identifying different forms and levels of mobility. This is espe-
cially true in defining and then detecting sedentism.
It is important that we learn to recognize the various forms of mobility
archaeologically, because the ways people move exert strong influences on
their culture and society. In his classic study, Mauss (105), for example,
related the Inuit's seasonal mobility to their moral and religious life. Sahlins
(136) saw mobility as conditioning cultural attitudes towards material goods.
Currently, archaeologists focus attention on the sedentarization process be-
cause reduced mobility precipitates dramatic changes in food storage, trade,
territoriality, social and gender inequality, male/female work patterns, subsis-
43
0084-6570/92/1015-0043$02.00

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
44 KELLY

tence, and demography (44, 69, 71, 73, 89, 93, 124, 126, 152) as well as
cultural notions of material wealth, privacy, individuality, cooperation, and
competition (170).
Here I consider concepts of mobility/sedentism, archaeological measures of
mobility, and the effects of reduced mobility, focusing on foraging and, secon-
darily, on horticultural societies. (Space prohibits discussion of nomadic pas-
toralists; for reviews see 36, 40, 98.)

CONCEPTS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY OF MOBILITY

While some archaeologists refer to a settlement continuum from mobile to

sedentary, many in practice think of mobility in typological terms. One early
scheme divided hunter-gatherers into four categories (11): free-wandering
groups, with no territorial boundaries; restricted-wandering groups, con-
strained by territorial limitations; center-based wandering groups, who sea-
sonally return to a central village; and semi-permanent sedentary groups, who
occupy a village year-round but move it every few years. Murdock (111)
modifed these terms and categorized societies as fully nomadic, semi-no-
madic, semi-sedentary, and fully sedentary. Many archaeologists still use a
variant of this typology, or, more simply, distinguish only between mobile and
sedentary societies (2).
These categories have analytic utility (e.g. 17, 21), but they collapse the
several different dimensions of mobility and encourage us to think of it in
terms of a single scale of group movement. However, mobility is a property of
individuals (25, 47), who may move in many different ways: alone or in
groups, frequently or infrequently, over long or short distances. Some sorts of
individuals may move more than others (e.g. men vs women, parents vs
nonparents, young vs old, good vs poor foragers), and movement also occurs
on daily, seasonal, and annual scales.
Binford (17) began to unpack the concept of mobility by differentiating
between residential mobility, movements of the entire band or local group
from one camp to another, and logistical mobility, foraging movements of
individuals or small task groups out from and back to the residential camp.
Binford used these descriptions to categorize two ideal hunter-gatherer settle-
ment systems. Collectors move residentially to key locations (e.g. water
sources) and use long logistical forays to bring resources to camp. Foragers
"map onto" a region's resource locations. In general, foragers do not store
food; they make frequent residential moves and short logistical forays. Collec-
tors store food; they make infrequent residential moves but long logistical
forays. However, the main difference between foragers and collectors is not
the frequency or length of movement, but the relationship between the place-
ment of consumers and the tasks of individual foragers-that is, the organiza-
tional relations between movements of individuals as individuals and
movements as a group. The Anbarra of northern Australia, for example, m

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 45

residentially only a few times each year (107) while the Aeta of the northern
Philippines move residentially much more frequently (90). Both, however, are
foragers since they move consumers to resources; the difference in the fre-
quency of movement is related to the food density of their respective environ-
ments.
Binford did not intend that the concepts of foragers and collectors become
types. Instead, he used them as conceptual tools that helped him to think about
the organization of camp movement relative to foraging activities and thus to
understand the role mobility plays in creating archaeological sites. Many have
misunderstood this aspect of Binford's original paper. The archaeological
literature is replete with examples of "foragers" and "collectors," along with
efforts to critique the behavioral descriptions of the two concepts while ignor-
ing the more important organizational differences they encompass (e.g. 6,
164).
Binford (18, 20) later added another dimension, what we might call territo-
rial or long-term mobility, encompassing cyclical movements of a group
among a set of territories. For example, the Nunamiut's specific annual range
changes as caribou populations rose and fell, and as resources such as fire-
wood became depleted at particular locations (3, 20). While the Nunamiut
change the location and size of their territory every decade or so, they eventu-
ally return to a previously used tract of land. Thus, they circulate through a
series of territories. Long-term mobility is often seen as a conservation meas-
ure (51), but it is more likely a response to subsistence stress (65). In either
case, the land required by a foraging (or horticultural) population over the long
term is much larger than the area used during a single year. Constraints on the
long-term territory rather than on the annual territory may be important in
conditioning evolutionary change (133).
Finally, to residential, logistical, and long-term mobility we can add perma-
nent migration from a former territory. Such migration can be intentional or
unintentional, and it can result from movement of groups or from gradual
abandonment by individuals or families. It is probably caused by population
growth, but there may be other reasons as well. This aspect of mobility is
poorly studied becaus. modem foragers and horticulturalists are encapsulated
and circumscribed by agricultural and industrial societies. However, because
most of the world was initially populated by foraging peoples, migration must
have been an important dimension of mobility in the past (for discussion of
free-wandering, see 11).
As should be apparent, most definitions of mobility are behavioral. Mobil-
ity has, of course, a cultural component, in that cultural conceptions of the
environment affect the way a locality is treated, as Steward pointed out many
years ago (85, 148). Hunter-gatherers who leave a place physically and con-
ceptually, for example, may treat it differently from those who leave a locale
physically but who still think of it as a place on the landscape, perhaps because
of facilities located there (20) or because of a cultural attachment to it. Some

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
46 KELLY

researchers differentiate between hunter-gatherers and pastoralists, arguing

that the former develop concepts of "relatedness" to land while the latter do
not (40)-concepts that generate differences in mobility in addition to those
associated with feeding livestock. Some prehistoric foragers may have had
little attachment to land under some conditions and so could more easily
migrate from one area to another. [The populations who colonized North
America, for example, may fall into this category (94).] Thus, current behav-
ioral descriptions may need to expand and include cultural and cognitive
factors affecting mobility, such as cultural concepts of and knowledge of the
environment.
Bettinger & Baumhoff (15, 14:100-3) offer an alternative to Binford's
forager-collector scheme. Their model proposes a continuum from travelers,
who have high mobility (presumably residential and logistical) and take only
high-return-rate food resources, especially large game, to processors, who are
less mobile and use intensively a diversity of resources, especially plant foods.
The difference in subsistence generates differences in demography as well,
with high rates of female infanticide lowering the growth rate among travelers.
According to these authors, such a model specifies precise relationships be-
tween population and resources, and settlement and subsistence. Both the
forager/collector and traveler/processor models, however, collapse several di-
mensions of adaptation (primarily mobility, subsistence, and demography).
Nevertheless, the detail of these models cannot help but encourage us to think
less typologically and more theoretically about the issue of mobility.

Foraging and Mobility

Although many variables affect mobility, subsistence-and therefore foraging

strategy-is certainly a primary one (17, 90). Since the introduction of optimal
foraging theory to anthropology there have been numerous ethnographic stud-
ies of hunter-gatherer and horticultural foraging strategies (e.g. 66, 142, 143,
171). These studies focus on foraging time, location and group size, and diet
breadth but are rarely related to residential movement because they are often
conducted with foragers settled by government policy, or with trekking hor-
ticulturalists who move residentially only every few years. Thus, arguments
relating daily foraging to group movement are largely theoretical.
As they consume food around their camp, foragers reach a point of dimin-
ishing returns, where "they may stay on only by absorbing an increase in real
costs or a decline in real returns: rise in costs if the people choose to search
farther and farther afield, decline in returns if they are satisfied to live on the
shorter supplies or inferior foods in easier reach. The solution, of course, is to
go elsewhere" (136:33). Many ethnographic cases demonstrate that foragers
move not when all food has been consumed within reach of camp but when
daily returns decline to an unacceptable level (72). Although the Tanzanian
Hadza, for example, can forage for roots up to 8 km from camp, they generally
do not go beyond 5 km, preferring instead to move camp (160). It is likely that

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 47

foragers move when the returns of logistical forays from the curr
below those to be expected from another camp, after allowing fo
moving (92).
We should point out that foragers do not always move as a group; forager
social units, in fact, can have an extremely fluid composition. Relieving social
tension is a reason often given for this fluidity, and subsistence can often be a
source of this tension. Large families, for example, will reach the point of
diminishing returns more quickly than small families, and may move on a
different schedule. The degree to which everyone's subsistence is tied to the
same resource (e.g. fish runs, communal hunting) will also condition the
degree to which families move together. Since many plant foods provide lower
returns than large game, the point of diminishing returns will be reached at
shorter distances for plant gathering than for hunting large game. Since large
game is usually procured by men (with a few ethnographic exceptions),
women's foraging should by and large determine when camp is moved. This is
important in considering the effect of reduced residential mobility on women's
and men's activities (see below).
At the heart of the relationship between daily foraging and group movement
is perceived "costs" of camp movement and foraging. While it is unclear what
period (e.g. per hour, day, or week) should be used in assessing the cost and
benefits of moving and foraging, we still might predict that as the cost of camp
movement increases relative to the benefit of foraging in a new location,
foragers will remain longer in the current camp (92). Several variables enter
into the decision to move. One important variable is the return rate of the
exploited foods. As resource return rates decline, foragers reach the point of
diminishing returns at shorter and shorter distances and must move more
frequently. Likewise, if a resource appearing elsewhere provides higher return
rates than current foraging provides, the forager may also elect to move. (This,
rather than "affluence," probably explains why foragers pass up some re-
sources; see 70.) Another variable is the "cost" of moving, determined not
only by the distance to the next camp but also by what must be moved (e.g.
housing material), the terrain to be covered (e.g. mountains versus prairie), and
availability of transport technology (such as dogsleds or horses) to move
housing, food, and/or people. If food has been stored, then the cost of moving
it must be balanced against the next camp's anticipated resources. Models
predicting how far resources can be transported (87, 128) show that a re-
source's return rate does not necessarily predict how far that resource can be
carried.
Perceived costs of moving must include evaluations of the risk involved in
transferring to a new location. "Risk" involves several components, such as
the likelihood of an event's occurring and the magnitude of that event. If
foragers perceive the next camp's resources to be more risky, they may elect to
remain where they are and accept lower mean foraging rates. Some desert
hunter-gatherers, called tethered nomads by Taylor (151), remain at a water

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
48 KELLY

source at the expense of decreasing foraging return rates (moving only when
water runs out) because they are uncertain of the status of other water holes.
Some Australian Aborigines, for example, will consume only 800 kcal/day
and forage up to 15 km from camp rather than move to an insecure water
source (33).
Finally, the number of people who forage for each family, and their specific
tasks, can affect mobility. The usual assumption is that adults forage, with
women gathering plant food and men hunting. However, in some societies
children forage and can provide much of their daily food needs (24); in others,
women sometimes hunt (50). Understanding variability in age and sex division
of labor is a prerequisite to understanding mobility.

Non-Energetic Variables

Foraging is an important variable, but by no means does it alone determine

mobility. People also respond to religious, kinship, trade, artistic, and personal
obligations. This does not negate the importance of foraging efficiency. In
fact, if nonforaging activities are as important as we presume they are, then
they require that one forage or garden as efficiently as possible (142). None-
theless, not all residential movements are directly controlled by subsistence.
People move to gain access to firewood or raw materials for tools, or because
insects have become intolerable. Movements can be socially or politically
motivated, as people seek spouses, allies, or shamans, or move in response to
sorcery, death, and political forces (64, 159). Kent (96, 97), for example, found
that Basarwa and Bakgalagadi gave political or social motives for 57% of their
movements. However, some movements made for social/political reasons can
ultimately be related to foraging concerns. For example, during a period of
drought-induced food stress, /Xai/Xai Basarwa stated that they were going
elsewhere to trade, but the decision followed two weeks of bickering over food
(165).
Finally, residential mobility itself may be culturally valued. Formerly mo-
bile hunter-gatherers often express a desire to move around in order to visit
friends, to see what is happening elsewhere, or to relieve boredom (92). The
Kaska, for example, did not like "sitting in one place all the time like white
men" (81:92). On the other hand, the coastal Tlingit used dance to parody
interior groups who, in their opinion, wandered about in a pathetic search for
food (106:96). Cultural ideals valuing movement might encourage mobility
even where sedentism is possible, although they are unlikely to account for
large-scale evolutionary trends. They may, however, help perpetuate cultural
and niche differences between populations of horticulturalists/agriculturalists
and hunter-gatherers or pastoralists, since mobility can be a strategy to main-
tain cultural autonomy.

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 49

SEDENTISM

One of the most important topics in archaeology today is the question of the
origins of sedentism, especially sedentism among hunter-gatherers. For many
years, sedentism was thought to be incompatible with a foraging lifeway
except in a few favored locations, North America's Northwest Coast being the
classic example. However, it is now clear from archaeological and ethnohisto-
ric data that significant reductions in residential mobility occurred without
benefit of agriculture (or with agriculture playing only a minor role) in a
number of areas, including the Gulf Coast of Florida (163), the Levant (8-10,
30), the American Midwest (29, 28, but see 115), and perhaps coastal/highland
Peru (1, 130). Recognition of these prehistoric cases has caused many archae-
ologists to reexamine the concept of sedentism.

What Does "Sedentism " Mean?

The term sedentism is used in many different ways and encompasses a range
of settlement forms (25). What one author labels sedentary another may label
semi-sedentary; some authors focus on settlement permanence, others on set-
tlement size (47, 126). Even where sedentism is defined, ambiguity may
remain. Higgs & Vita-Finzi (77:29), for example, defined sedentary econo-
mies as those "practiced by human groups which stay in one place all the year
round," but these authors also recognized sedentary-cum-mobile societies hav-
ing "a mobile element associated with sedentary occupation." Most authors
see sedentism as a process "whereby human groups reduce their mobility to
the point where they remain residentially stationary year-round" (80:374), and
sedentary settlement systems as "those in which at least part of the population
remains at the same location throughout the entire year" (G. Rice, in 30:183).
For the sake of convenience, I use these definitions here.
Sedentism is usually considered a relative rather than an absolute condition
(e.g. 130:270). "Sedentary" settlement, therefore, usually means a condition
less mobile than some previous one. Thus, Brown & Vierra (29:189) refer to
the settlement systems of the Middle Archaic Period of the American Midwest
as ones of "increasing degrees of sedentary settlement." Bar-Yosef & Belfer-
Cohen (9:490, 10:186) refer to the Natufian Phase in the Levant as the period
of the "emergence" of sedentism, a period of increasing "degrees" of seden-
tism, a trend to be "deepened" during the succeeding Early Neolithic Phase
(see also 27). Archaeologists envision the "emergence" of sedentism as a
process akin to a settlement system's batteries running down: People move
less and less until they are not moving at all. The transition is thus quantitative,
not qualitative. It is not clear, however, whether the slow "emergence" of
sedentism is always real, or is in some cases a product of a poor sample of the
archaeological record. Depending on chronological controls and sites' tempo-
ral distribution, a slow transition could appear to be quick, or vice versa.

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
50 KELLY

This view of gradual quantitative change also comes from archaeologists'

tendency to think of mobility in terms of a single scale, a single continuum of
residential mobility, rather than as a multi-dimensional phenomenon. But in
thinking about sedentism as a point on a continuum of residential mobility, or
as a system-state opposed to "mobile," archaeologists conflate the many dif-
ferent dimensions of mobility-individual mobility, group residential move-
ments, territorial shifts, and migration-each of which can vary independently
of the others (90). There is no single continuum of mobility (47), and continu-
ing to rely on one diverts attention from the relationship between camp move-
ment and foraging. The question of what causes sedentism actually subsumes
many different questions: What controls whether people move as a camp, as
families, or as individuals? What controls how far an individual can travel in a
logistical foray? What controls how frequently or how far a group moves over
the course of a year (90)? What controls how frequently a group shifts its
annual range?

Is Sedentism a Threshold Phenomenon?

Not only do archaeologists tend to see sedentism as emerging slowly along a

continuum of residential mobility, but many also see it as an important social
and behavioral threshold, a "point of no return" (9:490), after which sedentary
peoples cannot return to a mobile life-style. In most cases this concept is
probably correct, but Ames (2) provides a potential counter-example. In evalu-
ating radiocarbon dates from sites in the plateau region of the northwestern
United States, he argues that pithouse construction, indicative of seasonal
sedentism, is episodic rather than continuous. While periods without house
construction could result from many factors, they may indicate intermittent
sedentism. The nature of archaeological data makes it difficult to assess the
accuracy of a model in which sedentism develops continuously over time.
Imagine a settlement system oscillating between states of greater and lesser
residential mobility. In all likelihood, sites produced when people are less
residentially mobile will be more visible archaeologically; those produced by
an intervening period of high residential mobility will be less visible, and if
undated may even be interpreted as special-purpose camps of the sedentary
system (see 158). The assumption that sedentism "emerges" slowly and is a
"point of no return" might erroneously appear to be confirmed.
Even when sedentary settlement systems develop, they do not necessarily
involve all of a region's people. As some people reduce their residential
mobility, others may continue to be residentially mobile, perhaps developing a
mutualistic relationship with the sedentary villages. We must recognize that
statements such as "sedentism slowly emerged" do not capture the totality of
the prehistoric social landscape. Hunter-gatherers today are encapsulated by
and interact with nonforaging peoples (see review in 112), and the interstices
between horticultural societies are frequently filled with nomadic foragers or
pastoralists (145, 146). It is highly likely that mobile foraging or pastoral

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 51

peoples filled the interstices between horticultural or agricultural settlements

in the past as they do today, influencing the nature of those sedentary societies
and in turn being influenced by them (109). A growing number of archaeologi-
cal studies of forager-farmer interaction, e.g. for the Neolithic in central
Europe (e.g. 62, 63) and Ireland (61), and for the late prehistoric period of the
southwestern United States (145, 146), testifies to the importance of these
interactions.
Recent studies of horticultural societies suggest new insights into the rela-
tionships among gardening, foraging, and village movement, especially for
Amazonia (56, 58, 66, 88, 123, 159). The variables that affect foraging are also
relevant to horticulture, for both can be evaluated in terms of time, returns,
cost, and risk. Both Vickers (159) and Heffley (75), for example, use Horn's
Model to describe Siona-Secoya and Athapaskan residential movements, re-
spectively; the only difference is that where Heffley discusses seasonal
changes, Vickers refers to multi-year changes.
Archaeological studies of horticulturalists' mobility strategies are changing
received views of prehistory. Archaeologists in the American Southwest, for
example, are reevaluating the concept of sedentism, and many think the
agriculturalists there, those occupying pueblo villages as well as those who
lived in pithouses, were more mobile than previously assumed (55, 122, 123,
166, 167; papers in 108). Preucel (123), for example, argues that the larger the
population the greater the distance some farmers must walk, and the greater
the probability that daily or periodic logistical moves will develop into sea-
sonal residential movements. (This was the situation of many Puebloan settle-
ments at the time of contact.) Seasonal rather than year-round sedentism might
account for the archaeological record of the Basketmaker and Puebloan peri-
ods. Seasonal settlement may also account for variability in Natufian sites in
the Levant (30).
In sum, sedentism need not be a threshold phenomenon. Not everyone is
equally involved in changes in mobility, and the inception of village life
entails changes in (but not a cessation of) movement. Additionally, reductions
in residential mobility produce changes in mobility on different levels and
scales under different conditions, resulting in considerable variability among
cases currently classed together as "sedentary" (25).

The Causes of Sedentism

THE "PULL" AND "PUSH" HYPOTHESES Price & Brown (125) label the two basic
hypotheses explaining hunter-gatherer sedentism as the pull and push hypothe-
ses. In the pull hypothesis, the presence of abundant resources is both a necessary
and a sufficient condition for sedentism to appear. To an earlier generation of
theorists, it seemed a straightforward assumption that humans would take
advantage of the opportunity to reduce mobility: "in general sedentary life has
more survival value than wandering life to the human race, and... , other things
being equal, whenever there is an opportunity to make the transition, it will be

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
52 KELLY

made" (11: 134). Sedentism, it was argued, is a more efficient form of resource
procurement, because it saves the effort of moving-in particular, the effort of
moving children, the elderly, and the infirm (126, 147). Part of the reason for
assuming sedentism to be efficient is that Western society sees movement as
burdensome and undesirable; but many other societies do not (41).
Many archaeologists continue to rely upon the "pull" hypothesis. "Re-
source abundance" allegedly accounts for sedentism among the Ainu and
Owens Valley Paiute (161); paleoindians of California (110); the aboriginal
inhabitants of coastal eastern North America (120), coastal areas of the arctic
(172, 117) and northern Europe (134); and Archaic hunters of the Andean
puna (130), central Mexico (113), the midwestern United States (29), and the
Great Basin (76, 103). Marine and wetland resources are the usual candidates
for resource abundance. (We leave aside the issue of whether sedentism is
actually demonstrated in each of these studies.)
The pull explanation of sedentism seems reasonable, but it is fraught with
empirical difficulties. Archaeologists long assumed that agriculture, for exam-
ple, would always result in sedentism because people could then produce
abundant food resources. However, we now know that agricultural practices
often precede sedentism, sometimes by many centuries, in the American
Southwest (166, 167), Mesoamerica (53), and the American Midwest (29).
Furthermore, although few agricultural societies change residences throughout
the year (126), some are nonetheless residentially mobile, even ones like the
Raramuri, for whom agricultural products constitute nearly 100% of diet (42,
59, 68). It was long assumed that the transition from pithouses to above-
ground pueblos, a transition that almost surely indicates a reduction in annual
residential mobility, was associated with an increased use of maize. However,
in at least some parts of the southwest, the settlement transition does not
appear to be associated with an increased use of maize (e.g. 55, 162; papers in
108). The relationship between agriculture and mobility is now open to ques-
tion (68).
Sedentism may not reduce mobility, nor may it be as efficient, as was once
thought. Binford (17) suggested that when residential mobility is constrained,
logistical mobility must increase. Eder (47:851) found this to be true among
the Batak, where mobility was shifted from local groups as whole units to
lower levels of social organization. As the Nata River Basarwa became less
residentially mobile, men made increasingly longer foraging trips, and women
gathered a wider range of bush foods, including lower-quality foods, working
longer hours to process them (44, 79). In both cases, reduced residential
mobility does not seem to have reduced overall energy use; instead, it reorgan-
ized it (and may even have increased it). We should point out that the Basarwa,
the Batak, and other foraging societies undergoing sedentization today are
instances of secondary or contact sedentism-a change in settlement behavior
imposed upon nomadic peoples by outside governments for purposes of cen-
sus and control. While it is difficult to separate the effects of reduced mobility

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 53

from those of a hostile political environment, we nonetheless cannot assume

that a sedentary existence is more efficient than a residentially mobile one.
It is true, of course, that if hunter-gatherers are to become sedentary (and
remain hunter-gatherers) then food must be available in a single location
year-round, either continuously or as a stored resource. Binford (19) argued
that hunter-gatherers would forgo such opportunities to become sedentary
because residential mobility allows them to collect information continually
about their natural and social environment, and thus to prepare for local
resource failure. However, others point out that environments fluctuate on
different scales and that ethnographic cases come from environments that
fluctuate widely from year to year (57). In areas where resource fluctuation is
infrequent or less severe there may be little need to remain mobile to gather
information.
Even where the conditions for sedentism appear to exist (e.g. resource
abundance and/or large-scale storage), there is not always archaeological evi-
dence of sedentism (28, 144). One simple simulation study suggests that if
foragers wish to maintain maximum foraging return rates they should move
residentially even if it is energetically possible to remain in one location (92).
Resource abundance may be a necessary but is probably not a sufficient
condition for sedentism.
As an alternative to the "pull" hypothesis, the "push" hypothesis proposes
that hunter-gatherers are forced into sedentism by subsistence stress. In this
scenario, as efficiently gathered resources become scarce, foragers intensify
their subsistence efforts, taking a greater range of foods and spending more
time in harvesting and processing them. Researchers invoke several factors to
explain intensification, including population increase, climatic change, and
territorial constriction (37, 126). In essence, these all involve resource stress-
a shortage of food supply relative to population size. Rafferty (126) developed
a model in which three different settlement patterns-nonsedentary, nucleated
sedentary, and dispersed sedentary-result from different environmental con-
ditions and different cultural responses to resource stress, including emigra-
tion, population limitation, and technological/organizational change. To this
useful model one might add greater attention to the concept of stress. Does
stress result from one lean season or does it require a series of lean seasons? Is
stress a periodic or a chronic state of subnormal caloric intake?
Understanding sedentism involves understanding the relationship between
residential and logistical mobility, between movement of the camp and forag-
ing. Assuming that foragers (or horticulturalists) wish to maximize the return
rate from foraging (or gardening), the decision to move is based not solely on
whether they can stay where they are but also on the difference between the
expected returns of the current and the next potential camp, after allowing for
the cost of moving. Local resource abundance must be weighed in terms of the
regional foraging potential. Many variables can affect this basic equation,
including the cost of moving, the regional population density (displacing oth-

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
54 KELLY

ers increases the "cost" of moving), and the degree of risk attached to the
resources of different areas. Much creative research remains to be done in this
area.

NON-MATERIALIST APPROACHES The push and pull hypotheses are both firmly
grounded in a materialist paradigm. In both, sedentism occurs initially (for
whatever reason), and as a result foragers intensify production. (Many studies
of sedentization indicate that intensification is coeval with or soon follows the
appearance of sedentary villages.) However, some argue that sedentism results
from the perceived need for intensification. In this scenario, what we might call
the social competition hypothesis, effort expended in mobility is channeled to
producing resources for competitive feasts, long-distance trade, or other pres-
tige-seeking activities (12, 73). Lourandos (102), for example, argues that a shift
towards semi-sedentism was driven by the development of increasingly com-
plex social networks and alliance systems. (Note that many archaeologists
would argue the reverse.) Lourandos suggests that environment and demogra-
phy play a role in establishing the initial need for social competition, but others
find the reasons less clear why some hunter-gatherers intensify (and become
sedentary) and others do not (e.g. 12). Determining whether or not sedentism
precedes intensification and social competition is critical to testing the social
competition hypothesis. To date, discussion relies upon generalized archae-
ological sequences where it is not easy to say which comes first.

STUDYING MOBILITY FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL

REMAINS

To this point I have mentioned a number of archaeological studies purporting

to demonstrate changes in mobility. I cannot evaluate all these studies here,
but I can note that it is difficult to study mobility archaeologically. Both the
resource base and mobility itself are difficult to document.

Measuring Resource Abundance

Evaluating hypotheses of sedentism requires that archaeologists document

actual availablility of food in a particular locality. Many archaeologists simply
assume food abundance from subjective evaluations of a region's potential.
Continuous, year-long occupation of villages and continual seasonal availabil-
ity of food within a feasible foraging distance have been documented only for
a few cases (e.g. 127, 134). Food abundance must be measured objectively and
must take harvesting and processing rates into consideration-for these are
crucial factors in selecting resources to use (142). Measures of sheer abun-
dance are not adequate. The biomass per hectare of forest is greater for mice
than for deer, for example, yet prehistoric hunters hunted deer, not mice,
because deer provide much higher return rates than do mice.

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 55

Even where the resource base is well documented it is normally limited to

those resources for which there is archaeological evidence of use. But in order
to test hypotheses about mobility and sedentism the nature of both used and
unused resources (or regions) must be documented, because "abundance" is
relative. To know what one resource offers means knowing what it offers
relative to others.

Stone Tool Technology

For many years, archaeologists have measured the size of prehistoric foraging
territories and thus the degree of mobility through the distribution of stone
tools relative to the geologic sources of their raw material (e.g. 82, 138).
Paleoindian Clovis and Folsom projectile points, for example, are often found
100-300 km from their sources. Some archaeologists argue that this indicates
high residential mobility (see papers in 48 and 149) or a combination of
residential, logistical, and territorial mobility (94). Such information provides
a rough indicator only of range, rather than mobility, since the raw material
could have been acquired through residential or logistical movements, or trade.
Archaeologists have tried recently to reconstruct mobility by examining the
organization of stone tool technologies (e.g. 4-7, 16, 23, 86, 91, 114, 118, 154,
155). Organization here refers to "the selection and integration of strategies for
making, using, transporting, and discarding tools and the materials needed for
their manufacture and maintenance" (114:57). Many factors affect tool pro-
duction, use, and discard; but currently the relationship between technology
and mobility takes precedence in research (156).
Archaeologists debate the relationship between mobility and technology.
Bifacial tools or cores are generally associated with frequent and/or lengthy
residential or logistical movements (26, 91, 94), while expedient flake tools
and bipolar reduction are associated with infrequent residential moves (118).
However, the distribution of lithic raw material could alter these associations
significantly (5). Other researchers focus on the statistical relationship be-
tween tool assemblage size and diversity. Shott (141) suggests that collectors
produce assemblages with no correlation while foragers produce assemblages
with a strong positive correlation; additionally, he suggests that there should
be an inverse relationship between technological diversity and residential mo-
bility (140). However, correlations between assemblage size and diversity
could be related to many factors (104, 153). Torrence (157), for example,
argues that technological diversity relates directly to the degree of risk in-
volved in prey capture rather than mobility per se.
Reconstructing mobility strategies from prehistoric technology is hampered
by several difficulties. First, there are no simple relationships between mobil-
ity and tool manufacture. Many other variables intervene-e.g. tool function,
raw material type, and distribution, hafting, and risk. Second, the reconstruc-
tion of different tool manufacturing methods from debitage is fraught with

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
56 KELLY

interpretive difficulties. Third, stone tools are not routinely used to a signifi-
cant extent by any living foragers, making it difficult to test ideas relating
stone tools to mobility. Analyses of ethnographic data often make the unveri-
fied assumption that as the total technology goes (including its organic parts)
so goes the (usually absent) stone tool component. At present, then, many
interpretations of stone tool assemblages as indicators of mobility are subjec-
tive, intuitive, and sometimes contradictory.

Site Structure

Another avenue of research into mobility lies in the analysis of site structure,
the spatial distribution of debris within a site (54, 97a). Studying changes in
modern Basarwa residential sites, Hitchcock (80) found that as residential
mobility decreased, the abundance and diversity of debris left in a site in-
creased, as did site size and the number of storage features (although group
size did not increase). Site size and artifact density are frequently used as
indicators of reduced residential mobility (10, 126), although they can be
attributed to several other factors as well, such as frequency of reoccupation
(31). The distribution of remains may be a better indicator of residential
mobility since it appears to be directly related to the length of time a location is
occupied. Specifically, instead of simply throwing or sweeping trash off to the
side (as mobile foragers do; see 116), sedentary Basarwa used secondary trash
dumps located farther from houses than those in camps of residentially mobile
groups. They also used specific areas for specific activities; thus, as residential
mobility decreased, internal site differentiation increased (80). While many
factors (e.g. social organization and cultural conventions) affect the use of
space, the site structures among nonresidentially mobile horticulturalists and
recently settled foragers and pastoralists appear to be more internally differen-
tiated than those of residentially mobile peoples (e.g. 42, 43, 59, 97, 100).
Much of this space differentiation seems to be directed toward the privati-
zation of space (40, 100, 170) and may be related to a change in methods of
conflict resolution. One way conflict is generated among foragers is through
one individual's refusal to meet demands to share. (Contrary to many claims,
foragers do not always share freely and gladly.) Mobile foragers use move-
ment to resolve social conflict; but if this option is not available, people may
"privatize" space (170) by placing houses further apart or by building enclosed
houses and fenced households to hide food and goods and discourage demands
to share (80). Criteria for recognizing mobility strategies archaeologically
must develop hand-in-hand with a theoretical understanding of how social
relations change as residential mobility decreases.

Houses

Reduced residential mobility can be demonstrated through indicators other

than site structure. The presence of human commensals-house mice, for
example-may indicate a continuous supply of fresh trash and hence year-

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 57

round occupation (9). Perhaps the most commonly used archaeological indica-
tor of a reduction in residential mobility is the presence of houses. Cross-cul-
tural studies demonstrate that investing labor in houses is related to low (or no)
residential mobility (e.g. 55). But even substantial housing may not indicate a
cessation of residential movements. Cedar plank houses built by Northwest
Coast peoples, for example, were partially dismantled in the spring and moved
to fishing locations.
Unfortunately, the presence of any kind of dwellings, even of those requir-
ing little energy investment, is often taken as evidence of year-round seden-
tism. Unless we understand the factors involved in house construction (21),
differential preservation of indications of houses can lead to erroneous recon-
structions of mobility. For example, as a group of people become territorially
constrained, they may visit the same places repeatedly each season. Binford
refers to such arrangements as embedded mobility (19, 60). Under these cir-
cumstances, people may construct facilities, including houses, at some loca-
tions. This may be why houses appear in rockshelters when settlement systems
appear to be becoming sedentary (1, 9). But these houses could indicate
redundant use of locations through residential or logistical mobility due to
territorial circumscription or a reduction in long-term mobility options. Evi-
dence of house scavenging (168) likewise could indicate continuous or sea-
sonal use, or be a product of reoccupation on even longer time scales.

Individual Differences in Mobility

Finally, it is important that we understand the differences in individual mobil-

ity patterns within a society. For example, in some foraging societies good
hunters remain out longer (and thus travel more) than poorer hunters, while in
other societies the reverse is true (78). Ethnographic accounts suggest that men
generally travel further than women in daily foraging trips, even remaining out
for one or several nights (this appears to be true even when women hunt); thus,
there can be gender differences in degrees of logistical mobility. Such variabil-
ity is extremely difficult to detect archaeologically, although one avenue lies in
detecting different kinds or degrees of mechanical stress on human osteologi-
cal remains. Larsen et al (99) show that the femurs of males sustained greater
mechanical stress than the femurs of females for a prehistoric adult hunting
and gathering population in the Great Basin. This difference in stress suggests
that males were more mobile than females.

THE EFFECTS OF MOBILITY

The difficult task of recognizing different patterns of mobility fro

ological data is important to an understanding of how changes in mobility
relate to other aspects of human society. Research suggests that changes in
logistical, residential, and long-term mobility strongly affect sociopolitical

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
58 KELLY

organization, trade, territoriality, demography, and enculturative processes.

Particularly important are the effects of reduced residential mobility.

Sociopolitical Organization
While foragers are often characterized as "egalitarian," a concept undergoing
increasing scrutiny (52), many are clearly nonegalitarian, with political hierar-
chies, wealth competition, and extreme social and gender inequality (125).
Keeley (89) demonstrates that groups occupying one camp for more than five
months of the year live at substantially higher population densities, rely more
heavily on stored food, and have greater wealth distinctions than foragers who
are more residentially mobile. It is likely, therefore, that a reduction in residen-
tial mobility encourages or is part of a process resulting in inequality.
Some see sedentism as lifting the constraints residential movements impose
upon a foraging society. Following the argument that sedentism is a product of
resource abundance and increases efficiency, many assume that sedentary
hunter-gatherers simply have more time and resources to devote to what Gould
(57) calls "aggrandizing" behavior. Here, inequality appears to be the inevita-
ble response of human nature to the accumulation of surplus made possible by
sedentism.
But sedentism probably does not lift previous constraints as much as it
replaces them (93). Specifically, sedentism probably occurs under, or soon
results in, conditions where residential and/or long-term mobility are no longer
viable solutions to local resource failure. Sedentary hunter-gatherers must use
other mechanisms to reduce the risk inevitably associated with reliance on a
single resource or location (38, 73). These may include efforts to increase
household production and storage by restricting sharing networks, by using
slaves, and by permitting men to control the labor of women (wives or sisters)
and affinals, thus fostering gender and social inequality (39, 74, 93, 137).
Additionally, more time and effort may be put into alliance formation,
entailing for example competitive feasting (73) and the manipulation of mar-
riages to ensure access to another group's resources. Accordingly, trade may
change as societies become sedentary; trade may in addition become more
critical as a symbolic indicator of social alliances (35). Territoriality may also
increase as competition for resources escalates with population growth (34,
37). Such competition might also increase perceived cultural or ethnic differ-
entiation between groups. Given that sedentism requires methods other than
mobility to reduce risk, the temporal and spatial parameters of resource vari-
ability probably condition the specific forms of social, trade, and territorial
relations (93, 129, 135).

Demography
The association of certain behaviors with sedentism implies that they are
generated not only under conditions of low residential mobility but also under
conditions of population pressure (89). In some cases population growth may

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 59

eventually force sedentism. However, as mobile populations today become

sedentary, their populations grow, often dramatically (e.g. 22, 79, 131, 132).
Medical care plays a role in this growth, but changes in women's foraging
behavior may also increase fertility and the rate of population increase.
The nature of the relationship between mobility and fecundity is not clear
(13, 169, 49). As pointed out above, a reduction in residential mobility gener-
ally increases resource processing. Adults in sedentary Basarwa camps are
busier at home than adults of mobile camps (45). For women, this transition
could increase fecundity in two ways. First, by increasing the amount of work
women do, increased resource processing may decrease the frequency and
intensity of breastfeeding, a primary factor in increasing fecundity (32). Sec-
ond, a reduction in female traveling, through a trade-off of foraging for re-
source processing, may also decrease aerobic activity and, through a still
poorly understood physiological process, increase fecundity (13). These trends
could be affected by changes in diet as well, by increasing caloric intake
and/or by using storage which, by leveling out seasonal fluctuations in food
intake, could maintain long-term energy balance and increase fecundity (49,
84). Children may also become incorporated into the work force of adults (45),
decreasing the perceived cost of children, and encouraging fertility (46).
Reduced residential mobility may also decrease child mortality, which may
be more critical to population growth than an increase in fertility (67). While it
has long been assumed that sedentism increases the rate of contagious disease,
Pennington & Harpending (119) point out that mobility encourages "traveler's
diarrhea," producing a chronic state of poor health in the children of mobile
populations that eventually takes its toll. Reducing mobility could increase
child survival and hence population growth.

Enculturation and Cultural Change

The changing adult work patterns associated with the changing resource har-
vesting and processing requirements of sedentism may also affect childrearing
(83) and alter enculturation. As the Basarwa became sedentary, for example,
men spent more time away from home and women spent more time at home
processing resources and doing other work (45, 79). These factors may con-
spire to reduce the time men and women spend with children, encouraging
young children to work more, especially in the care of infants, and thus cause a
shift from parental to peer-group enculturation (46, 45). Although the process
is by no means clear (and many factors are involved), peer-group enculturation
appears to encourage processes of gender role enculturation (46) and the
formation of modal personalities different from those of parental encultura-
tion. Such a shift in enculturation patterns could alter culture in sedentary
communities.

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
60 KELLY

CONCLUSION

There are no Gardens of Eden on earth, no single locales that can provide for
all human needs. Mobility-residential, logistical, long-term, and migration-
was the first means humans used to overcome this problem. Changes in the
way humans choose to be mobile dramatically affect other aspects of human
life, from demography to enculturation. Theoretically, then, mobility must be
critical to understanding human evolutionary change. From this perspective, it
is encouraging to see theoretical and archaeological scrutiny of early hominid
foraging and mobility patterns (137a). Potts, for example, has asked whether
the concentrations of fauna and stone tools at places such as Olduvai Gorge are
evidence of home bases or are intentional caches of stone to be used by
foraging hominids, perhaps in scavenging carcasses (121). The foraging and
mobility patterns of early hominids were in all likelihood quite different from
those of any known foragers or nonhuman primates. Documenting variability
in these patterns is important to an understanding of how selective processes
shaped human evolution [see Potts's (121) comparison of the archaeology of
Olduvai and Koobi Fora].
By deconstructing the concepts of mobility and sedentism, we see the need
to construct more useful approaches than a simple polarization of mobile vs
sedentary societies. Indeed, it is no longer useful to speak of a continuum
between mobile and sedentary systems, since mobility is not merely variable
but multi-dimensional. No society is sedentary, not even our own industrial
one-people simply move in different ways. The dimensions of movement
need to be disentangled and studied independently so that we can understand
how factors altering one component affect other areas of behavior and culture.
We will also need more detailed theoretical arguments linking group move-
ment and daily activities with economic structures, labor requirements, child-
care, marriage, and trade. Numerous technical and theoretical difflculties
surround the archaeological study of mobility, and archaeological, ethno-
graphic, and ethnohistoric data must be used creatively in developing meth-
odological tools for the study of prehistoric mobility. Such middle-range
research promises a large reward, for the analytical study of mobility and
foraging will provide a clearer understanding of important evolutionary proc-
esses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Lin Poyer for her patient consideration of previous drafts, and W. H.
Wills and T. Rocek for their thoughts on sedentism.

Literature Cited

1. Aldenderfer, M. S. 1989. The Archaic Pe- shift or a transitional change in hunter-gath-

riod in the south-central Andes. J. World erer mobility patterns? See Ref. 63, pp.
Prehist. 3:117-58 108-34
2. Ames, K. M. 1991. Sedentism: a temporal 3. Amsden, C. 1977. A quantitative analysis

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

of Nunamiut Eskimo settlement dynamics.
PhD thesis. Univ. New Mexico, Albuquer-
que
4. Andrefsky, W. 1991. Inferring trends in
prehistoric settlement behavior from
lithic production technology in the
southern Plains. North Am. Archaeol.
12:129--44
5. Bamforth, D. B. 1986. Technological effi-
ciency and tool curation. Am. Antiq. 51:38-
50
6. Bamforth, D. B. 1990. Settlement, raw ma-
terial, and lithic procurement in the central
Mojave Desert. J. Anthropol. Res. 9:70-
104
7. Bamforth, D. B. 1991. Technological or-
ganization and hunter-gatherer land use.
Am. Antiq. 56:216-35
8. Bar-Yosef, 0. 1987. Late Pleistocene adap-
tations in the Levant. In The Pleistocene
Old World: Regional Perspectives, ed. 0.
Soffer, pp. 219-36. New York: Plenum
9. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. 1989. The
origins of sedentism and farming commu-
nities in the Levant. J. World Prehist.
3:447-98
10. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. 1991.
From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territo-
rial farmers in the Levant. See Ref. 63, pp.
181-202
11. Beardsley, R. K., Holder, P., Krieger, A.,
Meggers, M., Rinaldo, J., Kutsche, P. 1956.
Functional and evolutionary implications
of community patterning. Sem. Archaeol.,
1955. Soc. Am. Archaeol. Mem. 11:129-57
12. Bender, B. 1985. Prehistoric developments
in the American midcontinent and in Brit-
tany, Northwest France. See Ref. 124, pp.
21-57
13. Bentley, G. 1985. Hunter-gatherer energet-
ics and fertility: a reassessment of the
!Kung San. Human Ecol. 13:79-109
14. Bettinger, R. L. 1991. Hunter-Gatherers:
Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory.
New York: Plenum
15. Bettinger, R. L., Baumhoff, M. 1982. The
Numic spread: Great Basin cultures in com-
petition. Am. Antiq. 47:485-503
16. Binford, L. R. 1979. Organization and for-
ination processes: looking at curated tech-
nologies. J. Anthropol. Res. 35:255-73
17. Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and
dogs' tails: hunter-gatherer settlement sys-
tems and archaeological site formation.
Am. Antiq. 45:4-20
18. Binford, L. R. 1982. The archaeology of
place. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 1:5-31
19. Binford, L. R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past.
London: Thames and Hudson
20. Binford, L. R. 1983. Long-term land use
patterns: some implications for archaeol-
ogy. In Working at Archaeology, by L.
R. Binford, pp. 379-86. New York: Aca-
demic
21. Binford, L. R. 1990. Mobility, housing, and
environment: a comparative study. J. An-
thropol. Res. 46:119-52
This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 61
22. Binford, L. R., Chasko, W. J. 1976. Nu-
namiut demographic history: a provocative
case. In DemographicAnthropology, ed. E.
Zubrow, pp. 63-143. Albuquerque: Univ.
New Mexico Press
23. Bleed, P 1986. The optimal design of hunt-
ing weapons: maintainability or reliability.
Am. Antiq. 51:737-47
24. Blurton-Jones, N. G., Hawkes, K., O'Con-
nell, J. F. 1989. Modelling and measuring
costs of children in two foraging societies.
In Comparative Socioecology: The Behav-
ioural Ecology of Humans and Other
Mammals, ed. V. Standen, R. A. Foley, pp.
367-90. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
25. Bocek, B. 1991. Prehistoric settlement pat-
tern and social organization on the San
Francisco peninsula, California. See Ref.
63, pp. 58-86
26. Boldurian, A. T. 1991. Folsom mobility and
organization of lithic technology: a view
from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico.
Plains Anthropol. 36:281-95
27. Bonnier, E., Rozenberg, C. 1988. From
shrine to hamlet: about the Neolithic proc-
ess in the central Andes highlands. L'An-
thropologie 92:982-96
28. Brown, J. A. 1985. Long-term trends to
sedentism and the emergence of complexity
in the American Midwest. See Ref. 124, pp.
201-23
29. Brown, J. A., Vierra, R. K. 1983. What
happened in the Middle Archaic? Introduc-
tion to an ecological approach to Koster
Site archaeology. In Archaic Hunters and
Gatherers in the American Midwest, ed. J.
L. Phillips, J. A. Brown, pp. 165-96. New
York: Academic
30. Byrd, B. F. 1989. The Natufian: settlement
variability and economic adaptations in the
Levant at the end of the Pleistocene. J.
World Prehist. 3:159-98
31. Camilli, E. 1989. The occupational history
of sites and the interpretation of prehis-
toric technological systems: an example
from Cedar Mesa, Utah. See Ref. 155, pp.
17-26
32. Campbell, K. L., Wood, J. W. 1988. Fertility
in traditional societies. In Natural and Hu-
man Fertility: Social and Biological Deter-
minants, ed. P. Diggory, M. Potts, S. Teper,
pp. 39-69. London: MacMillan Press
33. Cane, S. 1987. Australian Aboriginal sub-
sistence in the Western Desert. Hum. Ecol.
15:391-434
34. Cashdan, E. 1983. Territorality among hu-
man foragers: ecological models and an
application to four bushman groups. Curr.
Anthropol. 24:47-66
35. Cashdan, E. 1987. Trade and its origins on
the Botletli River, Botswana. J. Anthropol.
Res. 43:121-38
36. Casimir, M. J., Rao, A., eds. 1992. Mobility
and Territoriality: Social and Spatial
Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers,
Pastoralists and Peripatetics. New York:
Berg
62 KELLY
37. Cohen, M. N. 1977. The Food Crisis in
Prehistory. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
38. Cohen, M. N. 1981. Pacific Coast foragers:
affluent or overcrowded? In Affluent
gers. Senri Ethnol. Stud., ed. S. Koyama,
D. H. Thomas, 9:275-95. Osaka: Natl.
Mus. Ethnol.
39. Collier, J. F. 1988. Marriage and Inequality
in Three Classless Societies. Stanford:
Stanford Univ. Press
40. Cribb, R. 1991. Nomads in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
41. DeVine, J. 1985. The versatility of human
locomotion. Am. Anthropol. 87:550-70
42. Dodd, W. 1989. Determinants of site struc-
ture among Guarijio horticulturalists. PhD
thesis, Univ. Utah, Salt Lake City
43. Doershuk, J. F. 1989. Hunter-gatherer site
structure and sedentism: the Koster site
Middle Archaic. PhD thesis, Northwestern
Univ., Evanston
44. Draper, P. 1975. !Kung women: contrasts
in sexual egalitarianism in foraging and
sedentary contexts. In Toward an An-
thropology of Women, ed. R. Reiter, pp.
77-109. New York: Monthly Review
Press
45. Draper, P., Cashdan, E. 1988. Technologi-
cal change and child behavior among the
!Kung. Ethnology 27:339-65
46. Draper, P., Harpending, H. 1987. Parent
investment and the child's environment In
Parenting Across the Lifespan: Biosocial
Dimensions, ed. J. B. Lancaster, A. S.
Rossi, J. Altmann, L. R. Sherod, pp. 207-
35. New York: Aldine de Gruyter
47. Eder, J. 1984. The impact of subsistence
change on mobility and settlement pattern
in a tropical forest foraging economy: some
implications for archaeology. Am. Anthro-
pol. 86:837-53
48. Ellis, C. J., Lothrop, J. C., eds. 1989. East-
ern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press
49. Ellison, P. 1990. Human ovarian function
and reproductive ecology: new hypotheses.
Am. Anthropol. 92:933-52
50. Estioko-Griffin, A., Griffin, P. B. 1981.
Woman the hunter: the Agta. In Woman the
Gatherer, ed. F Dahlberg, pp. 121-5 1. New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press
51. Feit, H. A. 1973. The ethno-ecology of the
Waswanipi Cree; or how hunters can han-
dle their resources. In Cultural Ecology, ed. 67. Handwerker, W. 1983. The first demo-
B. Cox, pp. 115-25. Toronto: McClellend
& Stewart, Ltd.
52. Flanagan, J. G. 1989. Hierarchy in simple
"egalitarian" societies. Annu. Rev. Anthro-
pol. 18:245-66
53. Flannery, K. V. 1972. The origins of the
village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica
and the Near East: a comparative study. In
Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, ed. P. J.
Ucko, R. Tringham, G. W. Dimbleby, pp.
23-53. London: Duckworth
54. Gamble, C. S., Boismier,W. A., eds. 1991.
Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mo-
This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
bile Campsites: Hunter-Gatherer and Pas-
toralist Case Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: Int.
Monogr. Prehist.
55. Gilman, P. A. 1987. Architecture as artifact:
Fora-
pit structures and pueblos in the American
Southwest. Am. Antiq. 52:538-64
56. Good, K. 1989. Yanomami hunting pat-
terns: trekking and garden relocation as an
adaptation to game availability in Ama-
zonia, Venezuela. PhD Thesis, Univ. Flor-
ida, Gainesville
57. Gould, R. 1982. To have and have not: the
ecology of sharing among hunter-gather-
ers. In Resource Managers: North Ameri-
can and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, ed.
E. Hunn, N. Williams, pp. 69-92. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press
58. Gragson, T. L. 1992. Comparative ecologi-
cal structure of tropical rainforests and sa-
vannas and its functional role in the
subsistence ecology of South American
foragers. In Research in Economic Anthro-
pology, ed B. Isaac. Vol. 14: In press
59. Graham, M. 1989. Raramuri residential
site structure: an ethnoarchaeological
approach to settlement organization.
PhD thesis, Univ. New Mexico, Albuquer-
que
60. Graham, M., Roberts, A. 1986. Residen-
tially-constricted mobility: a preliminary
investigation of variability in settlement or-
ganization. Haliksa'i 5:105-16
61. Green, S. W. 1991. Foragers and farmers on
the prehistoric Irish frontier. See Ref. 63,
pp. 216-44
62. Gregg, S. A. 1988. Foragers and Farmers:
Population Interaction and Agricultural
Expansion in PrehistoricEurope. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
63. Gregg, S. A., ed. 1991. Between Bands and
States. Cent. Archaeol. Invest. Occas. Pap.
No. 9. Carbondale: S. Ill. Univ. Press
64. Griffin, P. B. 1989. Hunting, farming, and
sedentism in a rain forest foraging society.
See Ref. 95, pp. 60-70
65. Hames, R. 1987. Game conservation or
efficient hunting? In The Question of the
Commons, ed. B. J. McCoy, J. M.
Acheson, pp. 92-107. Tucson: Univ. Ari-
zona Press
66. Hames, R. B., Vickers, W. T., eds. 1983.
Adaptive Responses of Native Amazoni-
ans. New York: Academic
graphic transition: an analysis of subsis-
tence choices and reproductive conse-
quences. Am. Anthropol. 85:5-27
68. Hard, R. J., Merrill, W. L. 1992. Mobile
agriculturalists and the emergence of
sedentism: perspectives from Northern
Mexico. Am. Anthropol. 94: In press
69. Harris, D. R. 1978. Settling down: an evo-
lutionary model for the transformation of
mobile bands into sedentary communities.
In The Evolution of Social Systems, ed. J.
Friedrich, M. S. Rowlands, pp. 401-17.
London: Duckworth
 MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 63

70. Hawkes, K., O'Connell, J. F. 1981. Afflu- labor among the Hiwi of Venezuela. J. An-
ent hunters? Some comments in light of the thropol. Res. 46:293-346
Alyawara case. Am. Anthropol. 83:622-26 85. Ingold, E. 1987. The Appropriation of Na-
71. Hayden, B. 1981. Research and develop- ture: Essays on Human Ecology and Social
ment in the Stone Age: technological tran- Relations. Manchester: Manchester Univ.
sitions among hunter-gatherers. Curr. Press
Anthropol. 22:519-28 86. Johnson, J. K., Morrow, C. A., eds. 1987.
72. Hayden, B. 1981. Subsistence and ecologi- The Organization of Core Technology.
cal adaptations of modern hunter-gatherers. Boulder: Westview Press
In Omnivorous Primates: Hunting and 87. Jones, K. T., Madsen, D. B. 1989. Calculat-
Gathering in Human Evolution, ed. G. ing the cost of resource transportation: a
Teleki, R. Harding, pp. 344422. New Great Basin example. Curr. Anthropol.
York: Columbia Univ. Press 30:529-34
73. Hayden, B. 1990. Nimrods, piscators, 88. Keegan, W. F. 1986. The optimal foraging
pluckers, and planters: the emergence of analysis of horticultural production. Am.
food production. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. Anthropol. 88:92-107
9:31-69 89. Keeley, L. H. 1988. Hunter-gatherer eco-
74. Hayden, B., Deal, M., Cannon, A., Casey, nomic complexity and "population pres-
J. 1986. Ecological determinants of sure": a cross-cultural analysis. J.
women's status among hunter/gatherers. Anthropol. Archaeol. 7:373-411
Hum. Evol. 1:449-74 90. Kelly, R. L. 1983. Hunter-gatherer mobility
75. Heffley, S. 1981. Northern Athabaskan set- strategies. J. Anthropol. Res. 39:277-306
tlement patterns and resource distributions:
91. Kelly, R. L. 1988. The three sides of a
an application of Horn's Model. In Hunter- biface. Am. Antiq. 53:231-44
Gatherer Foraging Strategies, ed. B. Win- 92. Kelly, R. L. 1990. Marshes and mobility in
terhalder, E. A. Smith, pp. 126-47. the western Great Basin. In Wetlands Ad-
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press aptations in the Great Basin. Museum of
76. Heizer, R. F., Napton, L. 1970. Archaeol- Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers,
ogy and the prehistoric lacustrine subsis- ed. J. C. Janetski, D. B. Madsen, 1:259-76.
tence regime as seen from Lovelock Cave, Provo: Brigham Young Univ.
Nevada. Contrib. Univ. Calif. Archaeol. 93. Kelly, R. L. 1991. Sedentism, sociopolitical
Res. Facil. 10 inequality, and resource fluctuations. See
77. Higgs, E. S., Vita-Finzi, C. 1972. Prehis- Ref. 63, pp. 135-58
toric economies: a territorial approach. In 94. Kelly, R. L., Todd, L. C. 1988. Coming into
Papers in Economic Prehistory, ed. E. S. the country: early paleoindian mobility and
Higgs, pp. 27-36. Cambridge: Cambridge hunting. Am. Antiq. 53:231-44
Univ. Press 95. Kent, S., ed. 1989. Farmers as Hunters.
78. Hill, K., Hillard, K., Hawkes, K., Hurtado, Cambridge: Cambridge. Univ Press
M. 1987. Foraging decisions among Ache 96. Kent, S. 1989. Cross-cultural perceptions
hunter-gatherers: new data and implica- of farmers as hunters and the value of meat.
tions for optimal foraging models. Ethol. See Ref. 95, pp. 1-17
Sociobiol. 8:1-36 97. Kent, S., Vierich, H. 1989. The myth of
79. Hitchcock, R. K. 1982. Patterns of seden- ecological determinism-anticipated mo-
tism among the Basarwa of eastern Bot- bility and site spatial organization. See Ref.
swana. In Politics and History in Band 95, pp. 96-130
Society, ed. E. Leacock, R. B. Lee, 97a. Kent, S. 1991. The relationship between
pp. 223-67. New York: Cambridge Univ. mobility strategies and site structure. In The
Press Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial
80. Hitchcock, R. K. 1987. Sedentism and site Patterning, ed. E. M. Kroll, T. D. Price, pp.
structure: organzational change in Kalahari 33-59. New York: Plenum
Basarwa residential locations. In Method 98. Khazanov, A. M. 1984. Nomads and the
and Theoryfor Activity Area Research, ed. Outside World. Transl. J. Crookenden.
S. Kent, pp. 374-423. New York: Columbia Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press (from
Univ. Press Russian)
81. Honigmann, J. J. 1949. Culture and ethos 99. Larsen, C. S., Ruff, C. B., Kelly, R. L. 1991.
of Kaska society. Yale Univ. Publ. Anthro- Skeletal structural adaptations in prehis-
pol. 40 toric Western Great Basin hunter-gatherers.
82. Hughes, R. E., ed. 1984. Obsidian studies Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Assoc. Phys.
in the Great Basin. Contrib. Univ. Calif. Anthropol., 60th, Wisconsin
Archaeol. Res. Facil. 45 100. Layne, L. 1987. Village-Bedouin: patterns
83. Hurtado, A. M., Hawkes, K., Hill, K., of change from mobility to sedentism in
Kaplan, H. 1985. Female subsistence Jordan. In Method and Theory for Activity
strategies among Ache hunter-gatherers of Area Research, ed. S. Kent, pp. 345-73.
eastern Paraguay. Hum. Ecol. 13:1-47 New York: Columbia Univ. Press
84. Hurtado, A. M., Hill, K. R. 1990. Season- lOl.Lee, R. B., DeVore, I., eds. 1968. Man the
ality in a foraging society: variation in diet, Hunter. Chicago: Aldine
work effort, fertility and sexual division of102. Lourandos, H. 1985. Intensification and

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
64 KELLY

Australian prehistory. See Ref. 124, pp. 120. Perlman, S. M. 1980. An optimum diet
385-423 model, coastal variability and hunter-gath-
103. Madsen, D. B. 1982. Get it where the get- erer behavior. Advances In Archaeological
tin's good: a variable model of Great Basin Method and Theory, ed. M. B. Schiffer,
subsistence and settlement based on data 3:257-3 10. New York: Academic
from the eastern Great Basin. In Man 121. Potts, R. 1988. Early Hominid Activities at
and Environment in the Great Basin. Olduvai. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Soc. for Am. Archaeol. Sel. Pap. No. 2, Gruyter
ed. D. B. Madsen, J. F. O'Connell, pp. 122. Powell, S. 1983. Mobility and Adaptation:
207-26. Washington, DC: Soc. Am. An- The Anasazi ofBlack Mesa. Carbondale: S.
thropol. Ill. Univ. Press
104. Magne, M. P. R. 1989. Lithic reduction 123. Preucel, R. 1990. Seasonal Circulation and
stages and assemblage formation proc- Dual Residence in the Pueblo Southwest:
esses. In Experiments in Lithic Technology. A Prehistoric Example from the Pajarito
BAR International Series 528, ed. D. S. Plateau, New Mexico. Hamden, CT: Gar-
Amick, R. P. Mauldin, pp. 15-32. Oxford: land
Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 124. Price, T. D., Brown, J. A., eds. 1985. Pre-
105. Mauss, M. 1906. Essai sur les variations historic Hunter-Gatherers: The Emer-
saisonnieres des societes Eskimos: etude gence of Cultural Complexity. New York:
de morphologie sociale. L'Ann&e Sociol. Academic
9:39-132 125. Price, T. D., Brown, J. A. 1985. Aspects of
106. McClellan, C. 1975. My old people say: an hunter-gatherer complexity. See Ref. 124,
ethnographic survey of southern Yukon pp. 3-20
Territory. Natl. Mus. Man Publ. Ethnol. 126. Rafferty, J. 1985. The archaeological re-
6 cord on sedentariness: recognition, devel-
107. Meehan, B. 1982. Shell Bed to Shell Mid- opment, and implications. In Advances in
den. Canberra: Austral. Inst. Aborig. Stud. Archaeological Method and Theory, ed. M.
108. Minnis, P. E., Redman, C. E., eds. 1990. B. Schiffer, 8:113-56. New York: Aca-
Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory. demic
Boulder: Westview Press 127. Renouf, M. A. P. 1988. Sedentary coastal
109. Misra, P. K. 1986. Mobility-sedentary op- hunter-fishers: an example from the
position: a case study of the nomadic Younger Stone Age of northern Norway. In
Gadulia Lohar. Nomadic Peoples 21- Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, ed.
22:179-87 G. Bailey, J. Parkington, pp. 102-15. Cam-
110. Moratto, M. 1984. CaliforniaArchaeology. bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
New York: Academic 128. Rhode, D. E. 1990. Transportation costs of
111. Murdock, G. P. 1967. The ethnographic Great Basin resources: an assessment of the
atlas: a summary. Ethnology 6(2) Jones-Madsen model. Curr. Anthropol.
112. Myers, F. R. 1988. Critical trends in the 31:413-19
study of hunter-gatherers. Annu. Rev. An- 129. Richardson, A. 1982. The control of pro-
thropol. 17:261-82 ductive resources on the Northwest Coast
113. Neiderberger, C. 1979. Early sedentary of North America. In Resource Managers:
economy in the Basin of Mexico. Science North American and Australian Hunter-
203:131-42 Gatherers, ed. E. Hunn, N. Williams, pp.
114. Nelson, M. C. 1991. The study of techno- 93-112. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
logical change. In Archaeological Method 130. Rick, J. 1980. Prehistoric Hunters of the
and Theory, ed. M. B. Schiffer, 3:57-100. High Andes. New York: Academic
Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press 131. Roth, E. A. 1981. Sedentism and changing
115. O'Brien, M. J. 1987. Sedentism, popula- fertility patterns in a northern Athapascan
tion growth, and resource selection in the isolate. J. Hum. Evol. 10:413-25
Woodland Midwest: a review of coevolu- 132. Roth, E. A., Ray, A. K. 1985. Demographic
tionary developments. Curr. Anthropol. patterns of sedentary and nomadic Juang of
28:177-97 Orissa. Hum. Biol. 57:319-26
116. O'Connell, J. F. 1987. Alyawara site struc- 133. Rowley, S. 1985. Population movements in
ture and its archaeological implications. the Canadian Arctic. Etudes Inuit Stud.
Am. Antiq. 52:74-108 9(1):3-22
117. Palsson, G. 1988. Hunters and gatherers 134.
of Rowley-Conwy, P. 1983. Sedentary hunt-
the sea. In Hunters and Gatherers, Vol. 1: ers: the Ertebo0lle example. In Hunter-
History, Evolution and Social Change, ed. Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, ed. G.
T. Ingold, D. Riches, J. Woodburn, pp. 189- Bailey, pp. 111 -26. Cambridge: Cambridge
204. London: BERG Univ. Press
135. Rowley-Conwy, P., Zvelebil, M. 1989.
118. Parry, W., Kelly, R. L. 1987. Expedient core
Saving it for later: storage by prehistoric
technology and sedentism. See Ref. 86, pp.
285-304 hunter-gatherers in Europe. In Bad Year
119. Pennington, R., Harpending, H. 1988. Fit-Economics, ed. P. Halstead, J. O'Shea,
ness and fertility among Kalahari !Kung. pp. 40-56. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 77:303-19 Press

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

136. Sahlins, M. D. 1972. StoneAge Economics.
Chicago: Aldine
137. Schalk, R. 1981. Land use and organiza-
tional complexity among foragers of north-
western North America. In Affluent
Foragers. Senri Ethnological Studies, ed.
S. Koyama, D. H. Thomas, 9:53-76.
Osaka: Natl. Mus. Ethnol.
137a. Sept, J. 1992. Archaeological evidence
and ecological perspectives for recon-
structing early hominid behavior. In Ar-
chaeological Method and Theory, ed. M.
B. Schiffer, 4:41-56. Tucson: Univ. Ari-
zona Press
138. Shackley, M. S. 1990. Early hunter-gath-
erer procurement ranges in the Southwest:
evidence from obsidian geochemistry and
lithic technology. PhD thesis, Ariz. State
Univ., Tempe
139. Deleted in proof
140. Shott, M. J. 1986. Technological organiza-
tion and settlement mobility: an ethno-
graphic examination. J. Anthropol. Res.
42:15-51
141. Shott, M. J. 1990. Stone tools and econom-
ics: Great Lakes paleoindian examples. In
Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern
North America. Research in Economic An-
thropology, ed. K. B. Tankersley, B. L.
Isaac, Suppl. 5, pp. 3-44. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press
142. Smith, E. 1983. Anthropological applica-
tions of optimal foraging theory: a critical
review. Curr. Anthropol. 24:625-51
143. Smith, E. A. 1991. Inujjuamiut Foraging
Strategies. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter
144. Soffer, 0. 1989. Storage, sedentism, and
the Eurasian Palaeolithic record. Antiquity
63:719-32
145. Spielmann, K. A. 1986. Interdependence
among egalitarian societies. J. Anthropol.
Archaeol. 5:279-312
146. Spielmann, K. A., ed. 1991. Farmers,
Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Be-
tween the Southwest and the Southern
Plains. Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press
147. Stark, B. L. 1981. The rise of sedentary life. social influences on !Kung San economics.
In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle
American Indians, Vol. 1: Archaeology, ed.
J. Sabloff, pp. 345-72. Austin: Univ. Texas
Press
148. Steward, J. H. 1936. The economic and
social basis of primitive bands. In Essays
in Anthropology Presented to Alfred Louis
Kroeber, ed. R. Lowie, pp. 331-50.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
149. Tankersley, K. B., Isaac, B. L., eds. 1990.
Early paleoindian economies of eastern
North America. Res. Econ. Anthropol.
Suppl. 5
150. Deleted in proof
151. Taylor, W. W. 1964. Tethered nomadism
and water territoriality: an hypothesis.
XXXVCongr. Int. deAm., 2:197-203. Mex-
ico City: Inst. Nac. Antropol. Hist.
152. Testart, A. 1988. Some major problems in
This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MOBILITY/SEDENTISM 65
the social anthropology of hunter-gather-
ers. Curr. Anthropol. 29:1-31
153. Thomas, D. H. 1989. Diversity in hunter-
gatherer cultural geography. In Quantifying
Diversity in Archaeology, ed. R. D.
Leonard, G. T. Jones, pp. 85-91. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
154. Torrence, R. 1983. Time budgeting and
hunter-gatherer technology. In Hunter-
Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, ed. G.
Bailey, pp. 11-22. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press
155. Torrence, R., ed. 1989. Time, Energy and
Stone Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
156. Torrence, R. 1989. Tools as optimal solu-
tions. See See Ref. 155, pp. 1-6
157. Torrence, R. 1989. Re-tooling: towards a
behavioral theory of stone tools. See Ref.
155,pp.57-66
158. Upham, S. 1984. Adaptive diversity and
Southwestern abandonment. J. Anthropol.
Res. 40:235-56
159. Vickers, W. T. 1989. Patterns of foraging
and gardening in a semi-sedentary Ama-
zonian community. See Ref. 95, pp. 46-59
160. Vincent, A. 1984. Plant foods in savanna
environments: a preliminary report of tu-
bers eaten by the Hadza of northern Tanza-
nia. World Archaeol. 17:131-47
161. Watanabe, H. 1968. Subsistence and ecol-
ogy of northern food gatherers with special
reference to the Ainu. See Ref. 101, pp.
69-77
162. Whalen, M. E. 1981. Cultural-ecological
aspects of the pithouse-to-pueblo transition
in a portion of the Southwest. Am. Antiq.
46:75-92
163.Widmer, R. J. 1988. The Evolution of the
Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on
the Southwest Florida Coast. Tuscaloosa:
Univ. Alabama Press
164. Wiessner, P. 1981. Measuring the impact
of social ties on nutritional status
among the !Kung San. Soc. Sci. Inform.
20:641-78
165. Wiessner, P. 1982. Risk, reciprocity and
In Politics and History in Band Societies,
ed. E. Leacock, R. B. Lee, pp.61-84. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
166. Wills, W. H. 1988. Early agriculture and
sedentism in the American Southwest: evi-
dence and interpretations. J. World Prehist.
2:445-88
167. Wills, W. H. 1988. Early Prehistoric Agri-
culture in the American Southwest. Santa
Fe: Sch. Am. Res. Press
168. Wills, W. H. 1991. Organizational strate-
gies and the emergence of prehistoric vil-
lages in the American Southwest. See Ref.
63, pp. 161-80
169. Wilmsen, E. N. 1986. Biological determi-
nants of fecundity and fecundability: an
application of Bongaarts' model to forager
fertility. In Culture and Reproduction: An
Anthropological Critique of Demographic
66 KELLY

Transition Theory, ed. W. P. Handwerker, Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies:

pp. 59-82. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
170.Wilson, P. J. 1988. The Domestication of
the Human Species. New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press
171.Winterhalder, B., Smith, E. A., eds. 1981.
Ethnographic and Archaeological Analy-
ses. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
172. Yesner, D. R. 1980. Maritime hunter-gath-
erers: ecology and prehistory. Curr. An-
thropol. 21:727-50

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:24:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms